How toppers approached this question
Critically examine the 'in-house procedure' adopted by the Apex Court to inquire into allegations of misconduct against judges of constitutional courts in India.
How toppers built answers of this type: the structure spine and the moves they converged on. Aggregated across real past-paper answers for this paper and directive, not this one question, so no question-specific evidence is shown. No answer text is reproduced.
The topper method
Critically examine
The spine toppers built
Open
- Define the key term first
- Context-hook opening
Build
- Both sides before the verdict
- Numbered enumeration
- Directive-mirroring headers
Close
- Verdict conclusion
- Forward-looking close
Moves they converged on
- Both sides before the verdict72% of answers
Weigh both sides before taking a stand.
- Numbered enumeration69% of answers
Enumerate points as a numbered list.
- Example as evidence63% of answers
Tag a concrete example explicitly as evidence.
- Verdict conclusion60% of answers
End with a clear verdict.
- Directive-mirroring headers58% of answers
Headers that mirror the question's directive.
Evidence toppers carried (per answer)
Examples ~2Current events ~1Institutions ~1Other anchors ~1Concepts ~1Principles ~1Judgments ~1Statutes ~1
GS2 · Critically examine: derived from 67 real past-paper answers: counts, not copied prose
Write your own answer to this question
Mark my answer freeMethod is derived from real past-paper answers as anonymized aggregate signal. Construction moves and counts, never copied answer text.